7
What We Have Found in Salary Studies … The observed differences cannot be totally explained by variances, such as individual characteristics, professional maturity, and productivities/merit. At larger, the observed differences are considered the effects of market factors, not a result of gender discrimination.  National trend analysis % of Salary Change across disciplines (1980-2010) % of Salary Change (Reference Groups: Asst. Prof & English Discipline) Salary Differences between Male and Female (All Rank) Salary Differences Accordingly, it is predicted that salary differences across disciplines may continue to affect gender differences in faculty salaries. Data Source: the Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession in Academe (1980-2010) published by the AAUP.

8
Regression Models Dummy Model  Pros Allow the regression to assign an appropriate value for each discipline based on faculty salaries paid in that discipline Reflect the unique history of the academic programs  Cons Produce a large numbers of degrees of freedom and limit statistical power Cause attention if  A department has less five faculty or uneven distributed by gender Complicated to explain the statistical results Haignere, L. (2002). Paychecks: A guide to conducting salary-equity studies for higher education faculty (2 nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Association of University Professors.

9
Regression Model Cont. Market Model  Use external market ratios to replace the categorical discipline variables  Assumption: the external labor market is related to the internal labor market at the position of entry level at a particular institution. Market Ratio: The average salary for a specific discipline (numerator) divided by the average salary of all disciplines combined (denominator). Formula: Luna (2007). Using a market ratio factor in faculty salary equity studies.

13
Research Questions 1. Which model would have the best fit (in terms of R 2 and adjusted R 2, and F-ratio) 2. Which model would be best to appropriately explain gender differences in pay (unstandardized coefficients, t-test)? 3. Which type of market ratios would largely contribute to faculty salaries (standard errors, t-test, partial correlation)?

14
Limitations of the Study Omission of variables related to measuring faculty performances (e.g., publications) in teaching and research would affect the strength of explanation. Due to the limited numbers of faculty, three disciplines were removed. Faculty in these disciplines were grouped with other related disciplines

18
Conclusion Conclusion 1 This study supports the premise that a single, continuous variable can be used to replace categorical discipline variables to explain variances in faculty salaries at a small-size public institution.

19
Conclusion Conclusion 2 This study demonstrates that the internal market ratio may serve as the best indicator to represent disciplinary differences in testing gender differences in faculty salaries because it truly reflects the local institution’s salary rewarding structure and practice.

20
Conclusion Conclusion 3 The external market approach should be used with caution compared to using the internal market model when conducting salary analysis at medium and small size institutions.  Unstandardized coefficient for females Yao (2012) Luna (2007)

21
Recommendations Whether or not using gender in regression model  Yes: Regression line is against the average salary of Males (Blue Line)  No: Regression line is against the average salary of Males and Females (Red Line)(Red Line) Affect all faculty members falling between the blue and red lines  Males paid less Paid more  Females paid less Paid more

22
Recommendations Salary remedy  Multiple regression analysis is group-level analysis and aims to detect systemic bias, the results should not directly apply to the individual level.  If the unstandardized coefficient for female faculty is negative, We should give all females the same amount of salary remedy, including those superstars.superstars.  Scattergram of residual distribution (Before v. After)BeforeAfter Haignere, 2002; Gary, 1990.